#

Facing 64 years in prison on charges he stole taxpayer money, spent it on his girlfriends, and then lied to a grand jury, former Strafford County Sheriff Mark Brave is rolling the dice on a possible trial.

Brave did not accept the proposed plea agreement reached in mediation by the court-ordered deadline, meaning the case now moves to a jury trial. Brave had until Friday to accept the deal crafted in mediation with Rockingham County Superior Court by Justice Peter Fauver.

“No Notice of Intent to Plea was filed by the parties by May 24, 2024. Accordingly, we anticipate this matter being placed on the court’s trial track, in accordance with Justice Fauver’s report,” Michael Garrity, spokesperson for the New Hampshire attorney general, told Foster’s Daily Democrat.

The mediation was ordered in the case after Brave and prosecutors came to an impasse in plea negotiations. Brave and his attorney Leif Becker refused the Attorney General Office’s proposal, and the state declined Brave and Becker’s counter agreement.

Veteran defense attorney Mark Sisti, who is not part of Brave’s case, said no party is bound to accept any recommended proposal created during mediation. At the end of the day, the defendant is in control.

“The decisions whether to try a case or not try a case are totally on the shoulders of the defendant,” Sisti said.

While it can sometimes be in the best interest of either the defendant or the state, or occasionally both, to avoid going to trial, judges and lawyers cannot stop a determined defendant. 

It’s unknown what the sticking point might be in the mediated proposal. Fauver’s mediation report is under seal, as are the previously rejected proposals from the state and Brave. Sisti said that in these situations there is usually something the accused doesn’t like.

“There must have been a point the defendant couldn’t accept,” Sisti said. 

Sentences in criminal theft cases typically result in restitution orders that require the defendant to pay back the stolen money. Some prison time is also common in cases with multiple felonies, though defendants taking plea agreements generally get shorter stays in lock up as one of the benefits.

Plea agreements save time in court and money for the state and defendant, as well as allowing both parties to avoid the risk of losing a jury trial. Juries are often seen as unpredictable by prosecutors and defense attorneys. 

Judges impose the sentences when the jury is done, and convictions after a trial generally result in significantly more prison time.

Brave is potentially risking a lot by turning down two agreements. He’s charged with several counts of perjury, as well as felony theft and felony falsifying evidence. On top of that, Brave is a less-than-sympathetic character for juries to consider.

The story of a sheriff allegedly maxing out his county-issued credit card to facilitate multiple extramarital affairs is not likely to gain the sympathy of jurors. At one point, Brave admitted to investigators he did not know the name of one of his tryst partners, as there had been so many, according to court records.

While he was being investigated for the alleged thefts, Brave went on a public relations offensive, including playing the race card. Brave made the investigation public knowledge and told media that Strafford County Commissioners were harassing and bullying him, accusing one of being a racist.

After he was charged last year, Brave was caught violating his bail orders by moving out of state, and lying to the court about his money in order to get a free public defense attorney.

Still, Sisti thinks Brave has options before a jury hears about his alleged misdeeds, and unexpected things happen in the run-up to trials.

“It’s not clear the case will ultimately go to trial. A lot can happen,” Sisti said. 

Officials at Hillsborough County’s Valley Street Jail say former Democratic state representative and current inmate Stacie Marie Laughton is male.

What they won’t say is whether Laughton — who identifies as a female — is being housed in the male population or whether they are keeping the convicted stalker charged with the sexual exploitation of children in the women’s population.

Laughton, 39, is being held without bail after being arrested last month on charges of distributing child sex images in a case involving Lindsay Groves, a daycare employee and Laughton’s lover. 

According to court records, Groves took explicit photos of children in the daycare and texted them to Laughton. The couple then engaged in graphic conversations about child rape. In one text, Laughton seemingly admitted to raping a child. Groves is accused of inappropriately touching children in a civil lawsuit.

In multiple conversations with NHJournal, Valley Street Jail Superintendent Joseph Costanzo refused to disclose if Laughton is being housed with men or women.

“It’s a security practice,” Costanzo said. “We don’t disclose where any inmate is housed.”

From the Hillsborough County Valley Street jail records regarding the incarceration of former Dem Rep. Stacie-Marie Laughton in July, 2023.

In fact, the location of male and female inmates who don’t claim transgender status is a matter of public information. Costanzo appeared to be making a policy exception for the former representative.

Costanzo was hired by the three members of the Hillsborough County Commission. The fact county officials are trying to keep Laughton’s status secret is a sign the alleged sexual criminal is being kept in the women’s population. If that is the Hillsborough County policy, it is a matter of concern to state Rep. Katherine Prudhomme O’Brien (R-Derry).

“If you are a man who is predatory, what would keep you from saying you’re trans in order to be more predatory in a prison situation,” Prudhomme O’Brien said. “You have to be naive to think that doesn’t happen.”

According to published reports, abuse against female inmates by transgender inmates is happening in prison systems across the country. After Gov. Gavin Newsome (D-Calif.) liberalized the rules to allow more trans-identifying inmates to transfer to women’s prisons in California, female inmates said they had been raped and assaulted. In a class action lawsuit brought by several female inmates, the women said predatory men are taking advantage of the system in order to commit rape.

In one particularly disturbing case, a twice-convicted baby killer is now incarcerated in the same facility as the mother of his children, whom he killed.

Transgender inmates have also been accused of raping female inmates in New York and Illinois, and one transgender inmate in New Jersey recently got two female inmates pregnant.

According to the booking information for Laughton’s latest stay at the county jail, Laughton is listed as a biological male. 

Costanzo said information about Laughton’s incarceration is too sensitive to make public. However, he has yet to cite any specific county, state, or federal policy that requires information about Laughton’s housing to be kept from the public. Disclosing whether or not Laughton is being housed with men or women would not reveal specific cell assignments or work details.

As for housing transgender inmates at Valley Street Jail in general, Costanzo said the Hillsborough Department of Corrections adheres to the Prison Rape Elimination Act, or PREA.

“We follow the PREA guidelines and house all inmates accordingly. We make sure to comply with any standards within that guideline.”

PREA was enacted in 2003, but the United States Department of Justice issued the first set of PREA guidelines for jails and prisons in 2012. Under PREA, corrections facilities will place transgender inmates into housing corresponding to their gender identity after a round of screening.

Last year, the Biden administration enacted rules to make it easier for transgender inmates to transfer to the gender population corresponding to their stated identity. 

Prudhomme O’Brien understands New Hampshire prison and jail officials are in a tough spot when it comes to trying to keep all prisoners safe while following federal guidelines, like PREA.

“I know it’s really hard to eliminate prison rape because prison is full of rapists,” Prudhomme O’Brien said.

On September 9, 1971, complaining of brutality and unsanitary conditions, the inmates of Attica State Prison in upstate New York revolted, wrested control from the prison guards, and took hostages. After 28 days of negotiations, all inmate demands were agreed to but one–amnesty for those who had revolted. These inmates argued that they were forced to take action because, having exhausted every lawful avenue available to them, there was no effective alternative to seek redress of serious and legitimate grievances.

Among their negotiated agreements was the right to vote.

Then, in a much-criticized move which permanently tarnished the career of one of the great political leaders in modern New York history, Gov. Nelson Rockefeller called in troops to forcibly retake the prison and 43 people, mostly prisoners, were killed. Simply giving these men a voice at the ballot box might well have forced elected officials to pay prompt attention to Attica and avoided this human tragedy. Instead, the events at Attica State fanned the flames of hatred and mistrust in prisons and in communities of color across the country.

As an activist for prison reform attending a nearby university at the time of the standoff, I was one of a group of student activists who met with mothers of Attica inmates who worried about the potential of a deadly outcome. The insurgents were blacks, the guards they’d taken hostage were white. We were privileged white kids from far away suburbs who weren’t even old enough to vote ourselves.  These prisoners’ families were inner-city minorities, but they believed we were the nearest thing they had to a connection with the white political establishment, so they begged us to do whatever we could to urge a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

In the end, however, our political action as non-voters went equally unheeded. We watched the news coverage as the horror of the retaking unfolded. I was deeply affected by what I believed to be one of the greatest racially motivated massacres in modern American history. The attack, replete with helicopters, tear gas, and assault rifles, looked like something from Vietnam.

Many years later, I was a frequent visitor to prisons while representing inmates as a criminal appellate attorney. I also have a family member who works in a prison every day.  From the resulting evidence I have garnered, far too many prison inmates today have little to no sense of loyalty to American society, but rather, an unhealthy allegiance to their respective gangs. The gang culture is all-encompassing and it is dangerous for both inmates and prison staff. Too many inmates, both white and of color, are members of either racist or hate-based gangs.

While their lawyer, I tried to highlight for inmates their equal ownership of the fundamental rights of all Americans–the right to a fair trial, to effective counsel, and against self-incrimination, among others–which few had ever experienced or understood. For more than a few, it instilled a sense of dignity which they heretofore had not known. Win or lose, the process of exercising those fundamental rights before the high courts often helped illuminate for them their lost connection to fellow members of their ultimate gang, the one to which we all belong, that American brotherhood of unalienable rights.

We should, therefore, never underestimate the power of being “woke” to our collective democratic heritage. In fact, so valuable was a similar membership in a democracy to the great philosopher Socrates that he chose death by poison hemlock rather than be banished as a citizen of the world’s first democracy, Athens.

To protect a right to a redress of grievances, to lend dignity to the internal prison culture, and to promote the ultimate rehabilitation of inmates, most of Europe and Canada afford the right to vote to every prisoner. So do the states of Maine and Vermont, with the only stipulation being they cannot vote in the local election where the prison lies so as not to have an inordinate impact on that community. Perhaps it is no coincidence that these two states have the lowest crime rates in the country.

Given that the U.S. incarcerates more people than presently live in the state of Rhode Island, the vast majority of which are coming back out some day, maybe we ought to think a little harder about giving them what might be the single greatest leg up on eventually becoming a civilized citizen, the right to vote.

As the Supreme Court has already affirmed that a prisoner does not give up his citizenship or his First Amendment rights by being incarcerated, voting inmates will have the right to access political information and will undoubtedly attract some attention from those who run for office. The resulting opportunity to learn how their government works, learn their Constitutional rights, and participate in democracy, just may lead some to don that cloak of dignity and pride, in common with their keepers, and every American.  And just perhaps they will sooner shed the brand stamped on their forearm by the gang culture that led them to prison, exchanging it for the deeper one they internalize in common with the rest of us.

Many of us outside the prison walls are fond of boasting about our democracy, its hard-earned heritage, and its unique role in history. Our greatest presidents have even called upon us to carry its torch to light the rest of the world. How incongruous of us, then, to deny the right of participation in that democracy to our own citizens who, although incarcerated, will largely be returning to our midst, and still expect them to become responsible members of American society.

There is much to gain and little to lose in finally joining the rest of the civilized world to give them the vote.